Talk:Sex and the law

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Marriage[edit]

Why is only same-sex marriage listed in the subjects box? Obviously marriage laws affect sex regardless of the genders involved. I'll change this to just "Marriage" unless someone has a good reason to keep the more limited term. 75.73.18.0 (talk) 02:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

attribution[edit]

I'd like some attribution for:

Cultures with highly censorious sex laws regarding adult sex acts often have high levels of concealed sexual abuse, particularly of children.

Note that I'm the editor of this site, so it should be clear where I'm coming from. But this statement cannot stand without attribution. --Eloquence 19:21 Nov 12, 2002 (UTC)

Ditto[edit]

There are numerous generalizations here. Statistics would help but might be an enormous job to maintain and might put folks to sleep if carried to extremes. Still, it could be done and statements like "Overt puritanism implies covert abuse" seem to need more support; if these "puritan" societies are also leaders in prosecuting abuse, it could be that the same abuse is just not publically visible in other societies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.199.110.120 (talk • contribs) 00:42, 22 January 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Victimless?[edit]

Prostitution and Sex between juveniles may or may not be "Victimless". Whether or not they are is POV. The spread of sexually transmitted diseases can be attributed to protitution, and sex between juvenile (depending on how you define "juvenile"- i.e. is 16-17 juvenile? or can it be less?) can be harmful to the psyche. Therefore I am removing "victimless", as being POV unless someone can convince me otherwise. Angrynight 21:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

necrophilia[edit]

I am taking out necrophilia from common sex crimes. It is amazingly rare, and most area's don't have law's against it because it almost never comes up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.66.103.9 (talk • contribs) 03:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surely it's not amazing that it's rare .... <g> --19:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

sex as in love[edit]

in norway. if a 14 year old boy/girl, has sex with a Boy/girl who is 15. the 15 year old has comited a crime. that is wrong. what if they can both prove that they both wanted to have sex with each other? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Demothones (talk • contribs) 09:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statutory rape is a crime in a number of jurisdictions, some have irregular scenarios like you described, others don't. It belongs and is thoroughly discussed in the article on Statutory_Rape#Romeo_and_Juliet_laws laws. The moral value of statutory rape laws is discussed in Age_of_consent_reform#Close-in-age_exemptions -O76923 (talk) 16:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why aren't most sex crimes classified as "crimes of passion"? Is this just a general oversight or is there some legal bias? Also is it non wikipedia standard to ask general questions in the discussion forums? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.189.97 (talk) 18:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Homosexuality[edit]

Should we mention homosexuality as a crime? It has up until recently been a crime in many western cultures and still carries the death penalty in 8 countries (if memory serves me correctly). It is worth mentioning that. Cryo921 (talk) 19:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Polygamy reference after Zina[edit]

The article on Zina makes no reference to polygamy, it is instead details Islamic Law regarding extramarital sex. I think its mention stems from confusion that Zina is related to the allowance to have 4 wives according to the beliefs by some Muslims. O76923 (talk) 16:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of having sex (within the law)?[edit]

I've just seen the excellent documentary on Bill Clinton (from American Films Experience on PBS ("Clinton". American Films Experience. Retrieved 25 July 2012.)) where he was presented with a definition on having sex by law (I don't remember from where this came), and then asked (supposedly a semifamous question) whether he had sex with Monica Lewinsky by that definition. I believe this article would benefit from describing the "definition of having sex" by law? I assume that there will be different definitions as there are different laws (e.g. different states, countries etc.). So the article should describe these different definitions so that the reader can see them. From a legal point of view, I believe that a good definition should clearly define what is meant by "having sex" (by law) so that when one is asked "Did you have sex with X?" in court then you can answer clearly from the definition. Maybe a legislator or lawyer will be able to give the definition. I found a few places on the Internet where the definition is discussed, e.g. http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=358663. It do indicate that it is not a simple question to answer in general, but what does the law(s) say? ~ Misuo (talk) 08:56, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FGM[edit]

I don't think Female Genital Mutilation should be covered in this article as it doesn't, in my opinion, fit into the category of "Sexual". Do you agree it should be removed? 178.103.133.251 (talk) 22:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It belongs in this article because, in addition to being about custom for some cultures, it has to do with affecting a girl or woman's sexuality (their enjoyment of sexual pleasure). Flyer22 (talk) 22:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I also added some information to more explicitly show how this topic relates to this article. Flyer22 (talk) 23:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also tweaked it again. Flyer22 (talk) 23:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Female Genital Mutilation is not sex, and the section should be moved to the main article, to the extent that it is not there already. Enjoyment of sexuality is well and good, but that does not, in my opinion, fall within sexual activity in itself. There seems to be general lack of distinction in several articles between sexual activity and sexuality. A better home for FGM may be in the sexual assault or similar article. Enthusiast (talk) 00:45, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Female genital mutilation being in this article is not about whether or not it is sex. I made clear above why female genital mutilation belongs in this article. As you know, I noted similar reasons here when I reverted you (and here in the followup note). This article is mostly about sex crimes, which is why sex crimes redirects here (and should redirect here), and female genital mutilation is a sex crime in parts of the world; various WP:Reliable sources state that. I can provide such sources if you would like. Many laws extend sex crimes to mutilation of the sex organs, such as a brutal assault that intentionally involved physical harm to the sex organs. Such brutal matters are about sex because the intention is, at least in part, to affect the person's ability to engage in sexual activity. Likewise, female genital mutilation is often about affecting a girl or woman's ability to engage in sexual activity, not just her sexuality. And that is why this edit by you is not entirely correct. Human sexuality is indeed an aspect of "sex and the law" or "sex crimes." I'm going by WP:Reliable sources on this matter, as I usually do when it comes to building content on Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 01:17, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That stated, and as you know, I moved the Female genital mutilation section down because it did not belong as the first section in the article. Flyer22 (talk) 01:27, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As a lawyer, let me say that FGM is a crime, but I have never seen it listed as a sex crime. Check the list of sex crimes in the article, irrespective of what your so-called reliable sources say. Besides that, it's nice to see you still double-checking me. Enthusiast (talk) 02:36, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You have not looked hard enough if you have never seen it listed as a sex crime, as it is with regard to the New York State Penal Law; yes, it is listed in that regard as a sexual offense...which also redirects to this article and is a synonym for sex crime. That is not a so-called reliable source; it is a reliable source, and, like I stated, there are various more in similar vein. I suggest you also check out some Google Books sources on this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 02:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have a particular care for the topic; the issue is of no consequence. However, I note that the New York law includes it in a list of sex offences, which is not the same as a sex crime as normally understood. This should be mentioned in the section. On the other hand, the UK Acts merely call it an offence. Perhaps they should be removed from the article. I leave it to you. Enthusiast (talk) 04:13, 15 November 2013 (UTC) On second thoughts, I'll do it and you can revert me. Enthusiast (talk) 04:17, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Like I stated, sexual offense is a synonym for sex crime; they are not distinguished in law, as far as I have seen. I have only seen them used as synonyms for each other in law, and in general. And either way, this article is not titled Sex crime or Sexual offense; it is titled Sex and the law, and seeing as both sex crime and sexual offense redirect here, this article including sources that use either or both of those terms is further validated. Due to not having fully digested your "UK Acts" mention, I was going to state: "And what are you proposing be removed from the article? I don't see how inclusion of the term sex crime can be validly removed from the article; not only is its inclusion covered by WP:Reliable sources, it is a WP:Alternative title. And I cannot see how the section on, or any mention of, female genital mutilation, can be validly removed from the article, given my above posts on that matter." But now I see what you meant by removal. I don't believe that should be removed, but, for now, I'll leave it up to someone else to revert that. I will eventually do something with regard to your aforementioned "human sexuality" edit if you don't, however, because, like I've noted, the lead is less accurate because of it. Flyer22 (talk) 04:27, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article title[edit]

Hello. "Sex and the law"... "Sex and the law"... Which law? Whose law?

In other words, might this article (and accompanying template) be better named "Sex and law" or the like..?

CsDix (talk) 15:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind either title. You can address the title of this article at WP:Requested moves. Flyer22 (talk) 15:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the suggestion. I've just initiated a rename request in the next thread. CsDix (talk) 03:11, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just saw that sexual offense redirects to this article (which I'm sure I'd seen before, and I'm about to redirect the plural form here as well; both of the British spellings already redirect here). Seems like that (the plural form) would be an okay title for it. Not sure about it being titled Sex crimes. Flyer22 (talk) 16:40, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Jenks24 (talk) 11:44, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Sex and the law → Sex and law – The current "Sex and the law" begs the question/s "Which law? Whose law?", etc. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 14:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC) CsDix (talk) 03:10, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Support. Like I stated in the #Article title section above, I don't mind either title. CsDix's suggestion is on-target. We don't need the word the in the title. Flyer22 (talk) 03:18, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose mostly because what we have is better than any proposals I've seen. I just don't see anything wrong with the current title. --BDD (talk) 16:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    See thread above: "Sex and the law"... "Sex and the law"... Which law? Whose law? CsDix (talk) 19:04, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did, I just think this is a common way of phrasing a topic's relation to law as a discipline. See, for example, Populations, Public Health, and the Law, Language, Meaning and the Law, or A Guide to Oral History and the Law, just to cite a few more recent publications. I don't think the phrase "the law" necessarily has to refer to particular statute or system. Is this an WP:ENGVAR thing? --BDD (talk) 20:31, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BDD also has a good point. The words "the law" can simply be taken by any reader to apply to the law in their jurisdiction or country, as well as to others mentioned in the article. The article is clear, after all, that we are not referring to any one particular law in any one particular jurisdiction or country. Flyer22 (talk) 20:39, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I guess I'm walking back toward the fence, i.e. I'm not sure either way now. I suspect the outcome here will be "no consensus", so no change – and so be it, if so. CsDix (talk) 22:57, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. "the law" seems clear to me to mean "law" as general proposition. LCS check (talk) 14:37, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

I did think that "sex and law" sounds a bit odd, but I wouldn't state that "law and sex" is better; it seems that the word "sex" should come before "law"...since the topic is about sexual anatomy/sexual activity and how the law applies to that, more than the other way around. Flyer22 (talk) 04:32, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The title "Sex and legal issues" crossed my mind, but that feels a little euphemistic / lightweight. Maybe something else..? CsDix (talk) 06:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
...Sex and legality, maybe..? CsDix (talk) 07:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds better. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 00:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm fine with that as well. Flyer22 (talk) 04:11, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to be difficult, but I don't like that at all. Legality redirects to principle of legality. I think the current title might be fine. --BDD (talk) 16:51, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me that this redirect also needs revision – "legality" and "principle of legality" are distinct concepts, no? CsDix (talk) 19:06, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article needs a better grounding in some reputable and reliable secondary source that discusses this subject directly, before refining its title. As it stands, I think it wants to be merged somewhere. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:44, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Sex and the law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:13, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Robertkeathley.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Recent, 2017-09-12, New York Times editorial[edit]

Here's a link to a NYT op-ed piece, When Junk Science About Sex Offenders Infects the Supreme Court:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/12/opinion/when-junk-science-about-sex-offenders-infects-the-supreme-court.html

--196.251.88.15 (talk) 03:28, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sex and the law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:29, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 12 September 2018[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus, therefore, not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 21:35, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sex and the law → Sexual offense – This article stands out as not following the pattern of other articles about specific crimes and categories of crime. The pattern with other article titles are names of crimes or categories, rather than "subject and the law". The former is a better pattern to follow because it is less vague, and more accurate as to the actual article content and focus. This article should follow suit and be called something like "sexual offense" or "sex crime". ··gracefool 💬 09:31, 12 September 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. –Ammarpad (talk) 13:25, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. The article doesn't just deal with sexual offences. It deals with such things as the age of consent and the legal status of homosexuality. "Sexual offence" (noting the ENGVAR issue too) is too narrow. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:17, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I was initially going to agree with Necrothesp and state that the article is broader than simply sexual offenses and that we already have the Sexual assault and Sexual misconduct articles for sexual offenses. But, while I understand what Necrothesp is stating, I'm open to the article being retitled "Sex crime." The article is currently formatted to be about the topic of sex crimes. And violations of age of consent or laws against homosexual behavior, for example, are sex crimes (despite protests on the latter matter). And the terms sex crime and sexual offense are commonly used interchangeably. Yes, homosexual behavior largely isn't a sex crime today, but the article can cover some history on the matter. I am also fine with the article staying titled "Sex and the law." After all, the Template:Sex and the law has a "Social issues" section and then a "Specific offences" section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:55, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You two aren't adopting a neutral point of view: homosexual behaviour is a sexual offence in many countries. The encyclopaedia shouldn't be assuming which countries laws are correct. More importantly, the topic is still about its legal status, as in the question of whether or not it is an offence. Similarly with the age of consent: it is about the age where sex is no longer a crime.
Agreed, re Template:Sex and the law it makes sense for that to have a broader title because of the "social issues" section which isn't just about the law. But on that note, if this article were to fit the pattern of other articles, it would have the Template:Criminal law instead - perhaps with an added box for "social issues". ··gracefool 💬 23:05, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How am I not adopting a neutral point of view when I stated that "violations of [...] laws against homosexual behavior [...] are sex crimes"? I wasn't assuming anything, and do not need to be reminded of how to follow this site's rules. I stand by what I stated above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:11, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And perhaps you should read the LGBT rights by country or territory article I pointed to, or look at the latest information on laws against homosexual behavior elsewhere. Despite laws against homosexual behavior still existing, it is a fact that homosexual behavior (and I specifically mean same-sex sexual activity) largely isn't a sex crime today. I am clearly for including information on laws against homosexual behavior in the article, and the article currently does that anyway. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:17, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I should've just said Necrothesp.
None of this is about what the contents should be, just the title. ··gracefool 💬 08:48, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see why I am not adopting a neutral point of view. I am not making any comment about the validity of the laws. I am saying that the current title is the most appropriate. See below. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:13, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Necrothesp's comment doesn't hold water, since the examples he gives are sexual offences - even if no country still had laws against them, the entire point of the article would be to talk about the history of those things as offences.
Neither of you have given an argument against mine, as to why this article should have a more vague title than other crime articles, instead of following the established pattern. ··gracefool 💬 08:48, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do take your point, but I still think this is the more appropriate title for the article. Discussions of the law do not only encompass breaches of the law, which is what a sexual offence would refer to. They also encompass the history, application and social effects of the law. A discussion of the age of consent, for instance, is not just about instances of or prosecutions for underage sex. It's much wider than that. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:13, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This article doesn't currently engage in that wider discussion - just like the other "offence" articles. ··gracefool 💬 09:27, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The OP mentions Category:Criminal law but that generally refers to quite technical issues such as gravamen or specific crimes such as manslaughter. By contrast, this article should have a wider scope covering cultural issues and changing attitudes. Johnuniq (talk) 03:16, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But it doesn't - so the title should reflect that. ··gracefool 💬 09:27, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Latest move[edit]

I reverted this latest move of the article by Anthony Appleyard at the request of Mr Kalm. Per the 2018 move discussion above, this is not an uncontested move matter. It should be discussed per WP:Requested moves. Mr Kalm or someone else can start an official requested move discussion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:39, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, while anyone can edit Wikipedia and bold is great, moving a long-standing page should occur after inviting discussion on talk. Just "I'm planning to move this to X. Any thoughts?" would do, then wait 48 hours. Johnuniq (talk) 03:56, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please add[edit]

Under Specific offences

(varies by jurisdiction)

please add

2603:7000:2101:AA00:79C8:18F2:59F9:859F (talk) 20:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sex_and_the_law&oldid=1214416874"